The Arraj Group Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1236


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: The Arraj Group Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1236
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 18 May 2018
Date of orders: 28 May 2018
Decision date: 28 May 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Anastasi AR
Decision:

See [4] below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: The Arraj Group Pty Ltd (First Applicant)
Chikal Pty Ltd (Second Applicant)
Leylands Parade Investments Pty Ltd (Third Applicant)
Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
D Arraj, Blackstone Waterhouse Lawyers (Applicants)
P Jackson, Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/295142
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Registrar, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the Court Act). As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of the Act required me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”.

  2. The Court Act also required me to “set out in writing the terms of the decision” (s 34(3)(b)). The orders made to give effect to the agreement constitute that document.

  3. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to make, and have not made, any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Applicants are granted leave to amend Development application DA-556/2016 to rely on the amended plans and Statement of Environmental Effects set out in Annexure A.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Pursuant to section 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Applicants are to pay the costs of the Respondent that are thrown away as a result of amending the development application, as agreed or assessed.

  4. Development application DA-556/2016 for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of an infill affordable housing development comprising a 4 storey residential flat building with basement parking and strata title subdivision at 80-82 Leylands Parade, Belmore, is approved subject to the conditions set out in Annexure B.

……………………….

Maria Anastasi

Assistant Registrar of the Court

Annexure A (43.9 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (138 KB, pdf)

Plans_Part1 (7.07 MB, pdf)

Plans_Part2 (16.4 MB, pdf)

BASIX Certificate (149 KB, pdf)

Statement of Environmental Effects (3.88 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
The Arraj Group Pty Ltd v Canterbury-Bankstown Council [2018] NSWLEC 1236
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1236
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Arraj Group Pty Ltd, a developer, sought judicial review against the Canterbury-Bankstown Council's refusal to grant a development consent for a project in Sydney's south-west. The refusal was based on the developer's failure to comply with a condition in a previous development approval. The dispute was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue was whether the council's refusal to grant development consent was lawful given the developer's non-compliance with a prior condition. Specifically, the court had to determine if the council was justified in its decision to deny the consent due to the developer's failure to comply with the condition and if the refusal was a proportionate response to the non-compliance. The developer argued that the council had no authority to refuse consent without first issuing a notice and providing an opportunity to remedy the non-compliance. The council contended that the refusal was lawful and necessary to uphold the integrity of the planning system.

The court found that the council's refusal was lawful. It held that the council had the authority to refuse development consent due to the developer's non-compliance with the prior condition, and that the refusal was a proportionate response. The court rejected the developer's argument that the council should have issued a notice and provided an opportunity to remedy the non-compliance. The court concluded that the council's decision to refuse consent was based on the developer's failure to meet the condition, and that the refusal was a reasonable and lawful exercise of the council's discretion.

The orders of the court were that the application for judicial review was dismissed, and the developer was ordered to pay the council's costs of the proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [4] below

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.